The main legal point established in the judgment is that insurance policies issued under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cover the risk of pillion riders.

CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) ALL these appeals are commonly heard since the common point is involved in all these appeals.

( 2 ) ALL these appeals are filed by the Insurance Company represented by its Manager.

( 3 ) I heard the learned counsel, Sri S. P. Shankar appearing for the appellants in first two appeals and Sri O. Mahesh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the third appeal, the learned counsel, Sri G. S. Kantnur, appearing for the contesting respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the first two appeals and Sri Ravi G. Sabhahit, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 in the third appeal. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the third appeal having been served with notices had remained absent before Court.

( 4 ) THE facts relevant for our purpose in the appeals are as hereunder :

( 5 ) THAT, the first two appeals are directed against the common order dated 22-9-1993 is MVC Nos. 21/92 and 22/92 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Bijapur, in passing whereof, the said Tribunal had passed an award of Rs. 20,000. 00 and Rs. 12,500. 00 each to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 had filed the above two claim petitions one for self for the personal injury suffered in the accident, whereas the second claim petition was made by her due to the death of her one and half year old child a pillion rider when her husband, Shankargouda Patil driven the Yezdi motor cycle bearing registration No. CNL 2338 in a rash and negligent manner and the accident in question had taken place in his hands on 27-9-1991. It is stated that the vehicle belonged to the respondent No. 3 in the first two appeals and the appellant-Insurance Company had issued Act policy by accepting premium of Rs. 40/- covering third party risk.

( 6 ) THAT, the third appeal i. e. MFA No. 668/94 is directed against the order dated 30-12-1993 in MVC No. 39/91 passed by the District Judge and MACT, UK, Karwar, wherein the respondent No. 1 in that appeal was awarded with compensation of Rs. 25,000. 00 together with interest at 6% p. a. for the injury she suffered in a road accident that took place on 16-2-1990 at about 5-00 p. m. near Godehalli Cross on Banavasi Road involving motor cycle bearing registration No. MET 9666 and a moped bearing registration No. CNE 8027 while the respondent No. 3 her husband had driven the vehicle in question belonging to the respondent No. 2. It is also stated that in the instant case too it was the Act Policy that was issued by the appellant-Insurance Company by covering the third party risk.

( 7 ) THE common point that arises for consideration in all these appeals is whether in issuance of an Act Policies in respect of the two wheelers involved in the two separate accidents cover risk of pillion rider or not.

( 8 ) BOTH the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri S. P. Shankar as well as Sri O. Mahesh, vehemently argued that in covering the third party risk under the two separate insurance policies in respect of the above two vehicles involved in two different accidents did not cover the risk of pillion riders and according to them, there would have been a contract between the appellant-Insurance company on the one side and the owners on the other for covering additional risk of the pillion riders. It was argued before me that the third party risk does not include the risk of the pillion riders.

( 9 ) SRI S. P. Shankar had also cited before me the following decisions in support of his argument, they are :1. ILR 1996 Kant 3041 : (AIR 1996 Kant 396) (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nagarathna ). 2. ILR 1997 Kant 1491 : (1997 AIHC 2159) (Kashmir D. Gudinho v. Suresh Kulkarni ). 3. ILR 1997 Kant 2697 : (1997 AIHC 4104 ). 4. AIR 1997 SC 1735 (Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd.)5. ILR 1991 Kant 2045 : (AIR 1992 Kant 3) (FB) (National Insurance Co. v. Dundamma ).

( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the contesting respondents, Sri G. S. Kannur, appearing i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document